Smith v. State

108 S.E. 130, 27 Ga. App. 318, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 863
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 23 Ga. App. 76
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 26, 1921·No. 12566·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Before one can lawfully be convicted of a violation of the “labor-contract act” of 1903 (Penal Code of 1910, § 715), it must be proved that at the time of the execution of the contract he had formed the intent to defraud. Proof of facts indicating that he formed a fraudulent intent after the advances were made is not sufficient to authorize a conviction. Redwine v. State, 17 Ga. App. 560 (87 S. E. 829).

2. Under this ruling and tbe facts of the instant case, the conviction of the accused was unauthorized by the evidence, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith v. State, 108 S.E. 130, 27 Ga. App. 318, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

108 S.E. 130 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Redwine v. State
87 S.E. 829 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)